This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Empiricism vs intuition vs revelation

#31Julian_Caesar(Topic Creator)Posted 3/24/2013 1:29:38 PM
From: Faust_8 | #028
He didn't ask for a reason backed up by science. He asked for a reason that COULD be backed up by science.


Which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. Revelation itself CAN'T be backed up by science, thus no answer I give will be satisfactory. The truths of revelation can be backed up, sure, but the experience itself can't. It wouldn't be revelation if you could recreate it in a lab.

So all he needs is an actual logical reason, not just an assertion that it's revelatory by the person involved.


Logical is not the same as "backed up by science." My assertion is completely logical, it just rests on assumptions that he thinks are completely wrong (i.e. revelation can be just as helpful for finding truth as science).

After all, what if Newton had claimed that his laws of motion were from revelation? It was a spectacular idea unheard of. Should we take that claim seriously? After all, it could be possible that while brilliant Newton wouldn't have come up with it on his own. Plenty of brilliant people were dead wrong about the cosmos.


I doubt you would take that claim seriously. And me personally, I wouldn't take it seriously either. I've already explained that I don't believe God is in the business of giving scientific truth by revelation. I've always believed that science falls within the category of "work that we're supposed to go about doing that God isn't going to perform for us with a snap of magical fingers."

Logically speaking, yes, he's within his right to make that claim and I don't really have grounds for criticism. I just choose not to believe him, of my own volition and based on what I believe about the universe. I don't have to emphatically prove him wrong to believe that he's wrong.

Personally if I was told a story where the recipient really did seem like they could NEVER have known the knowledge beforehand (and weren't trying to "sell" me the idea) I would consider it interesting at least. I might not believe them but I wouldn't brush it away as false either. So no, I don't need you to actually have corroborated evidence and experiments, because that's ludicrous to expect.


Well that's a wonderful viewpoint to take. Do you expect there to eventually be corroborated evidence and experiments, given enough time? Or are you willing to accept it at face value, with no restrictions?

But yet you insist that nothing will be good enough, because I suspect you're covering for the fact that it took place securely inside your own head and nowhere else. After all, I've heard testimonies of ex-Christians that really did think they were receiving advice from God, and the advice felt different and more wise than what their brains could come up with, and yet later they realized it was ALL their brain the whole time--they had made a simulacrum of God inside their head.


I insist that nothing will be good enough because he specifically said that personal experiences would not be good enough. It's not a difficult concept, and he spelled it out pretty clearly.

As for you, are you sincerely interested in the things I have to say about my salvation, and relationship with God? Or do you think (as you seem to reveal by what you say) that only miraculous events and "physical sightings" of God/angels/etc count as "revelation?"
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#32Julian_Caesar(Topic Creator)Posted 3/24/2013 1:37:53 PM
From: squareandrare | #030
Suppose I told you that I could communicate with lampposts, and these lampposts provided divine truth. Of course, your response should be to dismiss such insanity without a second thought. But let's suppose you decided to humor me, so you might ask what truths it has inspired. So I then give you a couple proverbs about not killing people. Would that satisfy you? What would it take for you to actually believe that I can communicate with lampposts and that they provide divine truth?


If I began listening to Lampposts and they began communicating truths to me, I might believe you were telling the truth. That's what happened between me and God, anyway, so I'd probably be willing to give Lampposts a try for the sake of fairness and consistency.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#33Julian_Caesar(Topic Creator)Posted 3/24/2013 1:39:39 PM
From: squareandrare | #030
Your claim to be able to magically get truth from god is every bit as crazy as talking to lampposts, and it requires the same level of evidence if it's going to be taken seriously.


Your inability to see past your own bias is every bit as close-minded as a YEC's inability to see past their bias, and it requires the same level of blind faith if it's going to be adhered to consistently.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#34Faust_8Posted 3/24/2013 1:47:39 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
Logically speaking, yes, he's within his right to make that claim and I don't really have grounds for criticism. I just choose not to believe him, of my own volition and based on what I believe about the universe. I don't have to emphatically prove him wrong to believe that he's wrong.


I had quite a few things to say but really, all I need to do is point this out--you think the EXACT same way about other people's claims of revelation as me and square do, and the proof is above.

Yet when we show the same skepticism of your claims as you would to anyone else, it's "bias."
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#35squareandrarePosted 3/24/2013 3:34:05 PM
Your inability to see past your own bias

"Bias" towards evidence is exactly what it means to be unbiased.

You think you feel god exactly as countless followers of every mythology ever. What you're feeling isn't special, and your beliefs don't deserve any special recognition. If you can't deal with that, either give something reliable, or just stop talking and be content in your mythical, ridiculous beliefs. Those of us that care about empiricism will work hard so that you can live a long life believing in whatever inane mythology you want.
---
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
#36bratt100Posted 3/24/2013 4:04:04 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: squareandrare | #030
Your claim to be able to magically get truth from god is every bit as crazy as talking to lampposts, and it requires the same level of evidence if it's going to be taken seriously.


Your inability to see past your own bias is every bit as close-minded as a YEC's inability to see past their bias, and it requires the same level of blind faith if it's going to be adhered to consistently.


I'm sorry but are you comparing him to a person who blinds himself to obvious truths?

He asks you how you know you receive truth from god and you ignore the question and call him bias. You seem to tiptoe around it in hopes that you don't have to ask yourself the question.

So as he said, how are you different then every other person of every other religion who has made the same claim?

It would just be much easier if you admitted the truth, you don't receive guidance from god and he hasn't revealed any truth to you. Your desire for this to be true has deluded you into thinking it really is.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#37gamesrgreatPosted 3/28/2013 12:26:13 AM
From: Julian_Caesar | #025
Well the Bible says Jesus knew all things from the beginning. I'm pretty sure that counts for revelation. As for the others, I didn't bring them up. They were actually offered as a counter to my argument, therefore the burden for proving the nature of their genesis rests on your side...i.e. you have to prove that they were constructed by the scientific method if you want to use them as examples against my argument.

Also, you're using that word "prove," which is probably still referring to the idea of "prove that your viewpoint is wrong, but first you have to assume that my viewpoint is right. Problem?"


But you never proved your point. Why does he have to prove the counterpoint? Or is the Bible saying Jesus knew all things from the beginning proof that he derived it through revelation?
---
D-Jesus, Christ Bosh, King James 3:16
The Miami Heat 2012 Champs- Miller Time
#38Julian_Caesar(Topic Creator)Posted 3/28/2013 8:34:23 PM
From: Faust_8 | #034
I had quite a few things to say but really, all I need to do is point this out--you think the EXACT same way about other people's claims of revelation as me and square do, and the proof is above.

Yet when we show the same skepticism of your claims as you would to anyone else, it's "bias."


So your rejection of revelation is strictly based on personal belief and preference, otherwise known as opinion? You're willing to admit that? You're willing to admit that your rejection has nothing to do with objective truth and everything to do with your subjective viewpoint? Because that's what I was saying.

From: squareandrare | #035
"Bias" towards evidence is exactly what it means to be unbiased.


That is only true if you assume beforehand that your particular brand of evidence is the only one that can possibly be true. Hence, a priori bias. You assume the truth of your own viewpoint as the "starting point" for examining which viewpoint is more accurate. Not very good argumentation, I assure you.

You think you feel god exactly as countless followers of every mythology ever. What you're feeling isn't special, and your beliefs don't deserve any special recognition. If you can't deal with that, either give something reliable, or just stop talking and be content in your mythical, ridiculous beliefs. Those of us that care about empiricism will work hard so that you can live a long life believing in whatever inane mythology you want.


Ad hominem so soon? And you can care about empiricism all you want, and you can believe I don't care about it if you want. But when you start caring about logic, let me know.

From: bratt100 | #036
He asks you how you know you receive truth from god and you ignore the question and call him bias. You seem to tiptoe around it in hopes that you don't have to ask yourself the question.


Read more carefully. He asked me to give reasons for my belief, shortly after declaring that personal revelation was not a good enough reason to believe anything. In other words, he demands that we assume my viewpoint is incorrect, before I'm allowed to say why I think my viewpoint is correct. I'm not saying he did it on purpose, per se, but he's certainly not willing to admit fault either.

It would just be much easier if you admitted the truth, you don't receive guidance from god and he hasn't revealed any truth to you. Your desire for this to be true has deluded you into thinking it really is.


Perhaps it would be easier if you admitted the truth? That you never received guidance or truth from God on the terms that you defined for yourself? And your desire to put God in a box deluded you into thinking that He never really tried to reach for you?

Of course, all that's baloney. I don't know anything about you. But neither do you know anything about me. It's easy to make judgments of people based on things they say from the anonymity of a keyboard, with nothing at stake except their e-pride; much harder to actually know a person and their motives. Agreed?
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#39Faust_8Posted 3/29/2013 1:28:49 AM
Isn't that pretty obvious? The only way I could actually reject your claims on "objective truth" grounds is if I knew for a fact that you are wrong. Whereas I actually just reject your claim because there is not even a hint that you're right, as well as it contradicting everything I've ever experienced and learned.

I also don't know why you still apparently think there is more than one type of "evidence." There isn't. There's just evidence, weak or strong. I think you're just confusing your weak evidence or lack of it as us defining the terms to conspire against you.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#40Moorish_IdolPosted 3/29/2013 9:52:30 AM(edited)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Some evidence requires inference. Sometimes it's later shown to be wrong, sometimes it remains as an alternative explanation (that is, more than one way to interpret a piece of evidence).